replace_text

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tracked behavior in detail (red strikethrough, underlined insertion, common text handling) and the effect of tracked=False. It does not describe side effects like undo behavior or performance, but the disclosed traits are sufficient for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details parameters in a structured list. It is slightly lengthy (approx. 15 lines) but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy exists in describing tracked behavior twice (first paragraph and parameter). Overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, output schema exists) and no annotation support, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter details. It explains the critical tracked/untracked modes and anchoring. It does not describe return values, but the output schema presumably covers that. Adequate for effective invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds meaning for 8 of 9 parameters via the Args section, explaining their purpose and role (e.g., context_before for anchoring, author for review pane). However, it omits the 'ignore_case' parameter present in the schema, leaving it undocumented. Despite this, the description significantly compensates for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Replace text in a paragraph' and distinguishes between tracked and immediate replacement. It contrasts with siblings like bulk_replace_text by focusing on a single paragraph, and with find_replace_formatted by not mentioning formatting. The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides guidance on when to use tracked=True (for review) vs. False (immediate), and explains context_before/context_after for anchoring. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like bulk_replace_text or search_text, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.